Conservation Halton
Environmental Impact Study
Guidelines
November 2005
This manual has been developed as a training tool and resource to facilitate the review of Environmental Impact Studies and to provide clear and consistent direction to proponents in the preparation of such documents. The review of such studies is done so under the following Memorandum of Understanding.
Memorandum of Understanding regarding the Implementation of an Integrated Halton Area
Planning System (1998) Part 4 of 9 Section 13.9 regarding the review of planning applications as they relate to the natural environment between the Region of Halton, Area Municipalities and Conservation Halton.
Memorandum of Understanding (1996) Part 2 Section c) i) regarding the review of planning applications as they relate to the natural environment and Provincial Policy as identified in Appendix A Schedule 1 of the MOU between the Regional Municipality of Hamilton -Wentworth and Conservation Halton.
Memorandum of Understanding (1997) Part 2 Section b) regarding plan review and technical clearances as they relate to the natural environment and Provincial Policy as identified in Schedule 1 of the MOU between the Corporation of the City of Mississauga and Conservation Halton.
Memorandum of Understanding (1997) Part 2 Section c) regarding plan review as they relate to the natural environment and Provincial Policy as identified in Appendix A Schedule 2 of the MOU between the County of Wellington and Conservation Halton.
Table of Contents
A. INTRODUCTION ...4
B. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING...4
C. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY ...4
D. PROCEDURE...5
E. FORMAT OF AN EIS ...6
F. CONTENTS OF AN EIS ...7
I. DESCRIBING THE PROPOSAL...7
II. DESCRIBING THE SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT...8
III. IDENTIFYING AND ASSESSING THE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSAL ....11
IV. AVOIDING IMPACTS AND EVALUATING ALTERNATIVE MITIGATION MEASURES ...12
V. MONITORING PLAN ...16
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ...16
G. DATA REQUESTS ...17
Contributors
Kim Barrett Senior Ecologist
Karen Chisholme Ecologist
A. INTRODUCTION
This manual has been compiled as a training guide for staff at Conservation Halton and to provide clear and consistent guidelines for proponents. This manual will also facilitate the review of Environmental Impact Studies under the Memorandums of Understanding, between the Region of Halton, Region of Hamilton, City of Mississauga, County of Wellington, and Conservation Halton, with regards to planning applications as they relate to the natural environment.
B. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is an agreement between the Region of Halton, City of Burlington, Town of Oakville, Town of Milton, Town of Halton Hills, Region of Hamilton-Wentworth (City of Hamilton), County of Wellington, City of Mississauga/Region of Peel, and Conservation Halton within the Conservation Halton watershed. The MOUs outline the redistribution of planning approval authorities and responsibilities within the Regional Planning Area to avoid duplication, enhance accessibility, reduce processing time, provide better coordination between the partners and maximize staff expertise.
As listed on the front cover of this manual, each municipality has its own MOU with Conservation Halton. Not all agreements are the same. For specific information on the delegation of approval authority and responsibilities please contact the municipality or Conservation Halton.
C. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY
An Environmental Impact Study is an objective assessment of a development proposal in or adjacent to significant natural areas or features of interest and whether the proposed development might reasonably be expected to change the biological and physical characteristics and/or integrity of an area and to what extent. The EIS identifies anticipated adverse impacts of a proposal on the significant area or feature and recommends ways to avoid or minimize these effects and enhance the area if feasible.
An EIS is required to be conducted when a development is proposed within or adjacent to a significant natural area or feature and is reasonably expected to have adverse effects on the area or feature as a result of changes in land use. Each municipality/Region has developed criteria specific to their needs. Proponents should consult the municipality/Region in which the subject property lies to determine if an EIS is required. Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU):
An agreement between the Planning Partners within the Halton watershed that outlines the redistribution of planning approval authorities and responsibilities within the Regional Planning Area.
Environmental Impact Study (EIS):
An objective assessment of a development proposal in or adjacent to a natural area or feature of interest and if and to what extent the proposed development might reasonably be expected to change the biological and physical
characteristics of the feature or area.
Changes in land use are defined as applications for official plan and zoning by-law amendments, Niagara Escarpment Plan and Parkway Belt West Plan amendments or development permits, subdivisions, severances and variances. The EIS should also meet the standards identified in the Greenbelt Act (2005), if applicable. The EIS should begin early in the development process when there is the greatest opportunity to design in harmony with the natural environment. Preconsultation with Conservation Halton and other review and clearance agencies is strongly recommended to ensure that all requirements are incorporated into the first draft of the study.
The completion of an EIS does not necessarily ensure that the application will be approved.
D. PROCEDURE
If an EIS is required the following procedures should be followed. Preconsultation
Prior to undertaking an EIS, proponents should meet with Conservation Halton staff and staff from other applicable agencies (Municipality, Niagara Escarpment Commission, Ministry of Natural Resources, etc). Preconsultation will identify environmental issues pertaining to the subject property and clarify what should be included in the terms of reference and the first draft of the EIS. This process will ensure a timely processing of the application.
Preconsultation for proposal in the City of Mississauga will be arranged through their Development Application Review Committee.
Scoping
Conservation Halton staff, in consultation with other review agencies, will consider:
the significance of natural features and function in the area of the proposal
the availability of detailed subwatershed studies and/or field work
specific boundaries, methods and protocols required the need for three season biophysical inventory.
Refer to Appendix A for suggested scoping elements for natural areas and features and their related functions.
Submission of Terms of Reference
Based on the outcomes of the preconsultation, scoping, and information found in this manual the proponent will draft a Terms of Reference for review by Conservation Halton and the reviewing agencies. Conservation Adjacent lands:
Those lands contiguous to a specific natural heritage feature or area where it is likely that development or site alteration would have a negative impact on the feature or its function. The extent of the adjacent lands may be recommended by the Province or based on municipal
approaches which achieve the same objective.
the EIS upon acceptance of the Terms of Reference by the review agencies.
Proposals in the City of Mississauga should consult the standard terms of reference developed by the City. Agencies may request further information than outlined in this standard terms of reference.
Prepare Draft EIS
A draft EIS will be prepared and submitted to Conservation Halton and other reviewing agencies for comment.
Final EIS
The final version of the EIS (with agency comments incorporated) will be submitted with revised development plans (if required). Conservation Halton staff will consider the final EIS when preparing comments for the proposal.
E. FORMAT OF AN EIS
The EIS follows a standard format. Section F of this document is a guide to Conservation Halton’s expectations for the content of Environmental Impact Studies. Studies submitted for review should follow the layout outlined in Section F.
Data collected through the EIS process must be submitted to Conservation Halton within 30 days of the finalization of the EIS. A hard copy of the data (i.e. ELC field data sheets) should be included in the appendix of the EIS. Data should also be submitted in electronic format where possible. In order to streamline data receiving we ask that the data submitted follows the format outlined in the following chart.
Significant Natural Area or Feature:
Includes wetlands, fish habitat, ANSIs, significant woodlands, sand barrens, tallgrass prairies, savannahs, significant
valleylands, significant wildlife habitat, habitat of rare, threatened and endangered species.
Proponents should submit 2 copies of the EIS to expedite Conservation Halton's review. Typically review time is between 4 and 6 weeks. Submissions are reviewed in the order they are received. Exceptions will not be made to expedite one submission over others received before it.
F. CONTENTS OF AN EIS
The following is a detailed list of requirements that should be included in the EIS. An executive summary outlining the key factors, resolutions and recommendations in the EIS should be included.
i. DESCRIBING THE PROPOSAL
The description of the proposal should identify and explain the development in relation to the existing natural features on the subject land and adjacent lands. This description should include:
What is proposed
The purpose of the proposal
The timing of construction/development The existing land use and activities on-site
A general location map, labelling main roads and creeks
A site plan with dimensions, showing the location of existing and proposed lot boundaries, building(s), septic areas, driveways etc. overlaid on an airphoto.
Activities associated with the proposal which may have environmental impact (e.g. works on stream banks, tree and vegetation removal, earth moving, etc)
Type of data Hard copy required
Hard copy format Electronic copy Required
Electronic Format (*refer to Appendix B for format) ELC (vegetation type) â—Ź ELC field data sheets â—Ź NAI ELC database template* Fish Collection
Record
â—Ź MNR Field Collection Record
â—Ź CH Fish database template* Georeferenced in NAD 83
Bird surveys â—Ź â—Ź NAI species database
template* Benthic invertebrate
surveys
â—Ź OBBN field data sheet â—Ź Excel 2000 (anticipated that information will be submitted to OBBN database)*
Georeferenced in NAD 83
Mammal trapping â—Ź â—Ź NAI species database
template* Amphibian and
reptiles survey
â—Ź â—Ź NAI species database
template* Dragonflies,
damselflies and butterflies
â—Ź â—Ź NAI species database
template* Mapping data and
Metadata
â—Ź â—Ź Arcview GIS 3.2 shapefiles
Recent air photo map at approximately 1:2000 and 1:10000 scale identifying
• Limits of the natural area(s)
• Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest as defined by Ministry of Natural Resources
• Vegetation communities, evaluated using Ecological Land Classification
• Provincially Significant Wetlands and their
classification as well as other wetlands as defined by Ministry of Natural Resources.
• Water features such as headwaters, rivers, creeks, lakes, ponds, springs and seeps, and recharge and discharge areas
• Limit of regulated area as defined by Conservation Halton.
• Contours at 5 metre intervals or less where available
• Protection zones for natural features/areas
• Land use designations
A preliminary literature review should be undertaken to determine the constraints of the site. The proposal should work within these constraints, and the site plan adjusted accordingly. A bibliography of the literature reviewed should accompany the report.
ii. DESCRIBING THE SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT
A biophysical inventory should be conducted to describe the surrounding environment. The inventory should be conducted for the entire natural feature/area as well as the area that will/may be affected by the proposal. This inventory must include a review of secondary sources (compiling information from existing documents), a scoped field inventory, or a detailed inventory, if warranted. The EIS should explain and justify the level of investigation undertaken. The data should be accompanied by a list/table including the date and time of the survey, weather conditions and personnel involved in the fieldwork. The rationale supporting the choice of study area and the seasons or times of the studies should be explained in the EIS. The following guidelines should be followed during these undertakings.
Feature Optimal Inventory Period
Secondary Source Scoped Field Inventory
Detailed Field Inventory Soil types by texture/grain size and
drainage characteristics
â—Ź
Overburden and bedrock geology â—Ź
Areas of high water table â—Ź â—Ź
Scoped Field Inventory:
Scoped field
inventories consist of observational notes made during a site walk covering a minimum of 60% of the subject property
Areas of groundwater recharge and discharge
â—Ź â—Ź*
Inventory of existing man-made features and archaeological potential
â—Ź â—Ź
Locations and usage of wells â—Ź â—Ź
Drainage patterns, basin boundaries and watercourses
â—Ź â—Ź â—Ź*
Existing erosion sites â—Ź â—Ź
Areas of shallow soil â—Ź â—Ź
Description of ecological communities (ELC)
May to early June, July to September
Acceptable if completed within the previous 5 years
Using ELC (include limits of the unit beyond subject lands), classified to
community series. Identify corridors and potential linkages.
Using ELC, classified to vegetation type
Assessment of condition of vegetation communities with reference to successional state, degree of disturbance, and extent of invasive species
Location of wildlife species and their habitats
Birds Breeding birds: May 24 to July 10 Between dawn and 5 hours after dawn
Migrants and over wintering birds: site specific
â—Ź Using Ontario
Breeding Bird Atlas protocols
Fish Survey Late April to June and Sept. to Oct.
â—Ź Using Ontario Stream
Assessment Protocol Fish habitat In snow/ice-free
conditions
â—Ź Observations
(mapping) should include the following: flow, channel form, riparian characteristics, anthropogenic and other disturbances, enhancement opportunities, substrate, instream habitat features and structures.
Using Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol, if applicable.
Benthos Spring or fall â—Ź Using Ontario
Benthos Biomonitoring Network Protocol
Mammals Species dependent â—Ź Sightings and
tracking
Flora May to early June and July to September
â—Ź Botanical inventory
Amphibians Early spring - summer (species dependent)
â—Ź Active searching
including existing and deliberately placed boards, Marsh Monitoring Protocol.
Reptiles April - June â—Ź â—Ź*
Butterflies Mid-July â—Ź â—Ź* Dragonflies and damselflies 3-season (minimum mid-June) â—Ź â—Ź*
Location of subject lands in relation to components of the Natural Heritage System
â—Ź â—Ź
Locally significant areas â—Ź â—Ź
Ecologically functional natural linkages and potential linkages
â—Ź â—Ź
Other natural features and functions (migration routes, deer yards, snake hibernacula etc)
â—Ź â—Ź
Other development applications known to be in progress in the area that would affect the natural heritage
â—Ź â—Ź
* Description of methods should be provided in appendices
A map should be included showing the sampling locations. The presence of Species at Risk (SAR) should be filed with the Natural
Heritage Information Centre in Peterborough and Conservation Halton. Locations for uncommon species or those identified as being SAR as identified by MNR and COSEWIC should be recorded in NAD83. Abundance estimates should also be provided. The location of SAR should not be included in public reports due to the sensitivity of the data. For more information on Species at Risk please contact Conservation Halton.
Other species and habitats that should be noted include heronries, deeryards, and migration corridors.
Analysis should include the inter-relationship and significance of the biophysical features with respect to adjacent lands, entire natural area, subwatershed, and significant and sensitive features and functions or the site.
This section should clearly identify all ecological constraints to development.
A table should be included with the date, time, personnel and purpose of all field work conducted.
iii. IDENTIFYING AND ASSESSING THE IMPACTS OF THE
PROPOSAL
An assessment of the impacts a development will/may have on the size, diversity, health, connectivity, functionality and resilience of natural areas must be completed as part of the EIS. The assessment should include potential effects before, during and after development as well as potential effects of processes (i.e. urbanization) that are made possible by the development. Effects may include:
Direct on-site effects (e.g. encroachment, fragmentation or elimination of habitat, tree removal, enhancement and/or restoration of existing features).
Indirect effects (e.g. sediment transport downstream, diversion of water flows, ponding, changes in volume of surface runoff) Effects on the ecological characteristics of the entire natural area (e.g. loss of habitat, edge effect, change in habitat) Short-term and long-term effects
Secondary effects (e.g. changes to the aesthetic qualities or educational value of the area, obstruction of greenway connections, effects on adjacent natural areas)
Cumulative impacts Negative Impact:
a) fish habitat- the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat, except where it has been authorized under the Fisheries Act b) Other natural
areas and features - the loss of the natural feature or the ecological functions for which it has been
The following issues should be explored in relation to the proposed development:
The significance of features and functions of the natural area and how the development will affect them
The sensitivity of the features and functions of the natural area and how the development will affect them
The potential impacts to the area and the likely duration of the impacts
The apparent impacts of previous developments or land use activities on the natural area/feature and/or function (e.g. trails, dumping, excavation and fill, exotic and/or invasive species) The methods used to determine the effects of the development. Ecological studies should incorporate relevant information from geotechnical and stormwater studies (and visa versa) for a comprehensive understanding of the potential impacts to the site features.
Secondary sources must be consulted and referenced and/or
methodologies used to determine impacts must be explained to support the assessment of impacts to natural areas. Statements such as "no impact" or "low impacts" need to be qualified with references or empirical data.
Examples of impacts and mitigation measures can be found in Appendix C.
iv. AVOIDING IMPACTS AND EVALUATING ALTERNATIVE
MITIGATION MEASURES
Constraints should be identified prior to the development plans. The best ecological location for crossings, trails, buildings, etc should be identified prior to developing a plan rather than trying to mitigate or compensate environmental impacts. Where negative impacts cannot be avoided as a result of the proposed development, mitigation measures should be explored to reduce the effects of the development on the natural areas. Ways of avoiding negative impacts should be listed and evaluated. Where possible, the proposal should be modified to avoid negative impacts. Similarly, various mitigation measures should be explored and evaluated. This section should also include:
An analysis of buffers and setbacks relevant to the potential impacts. Current accepted science and guidance by Federal,
Provincial and Municipal governments are strongly
recommended to determine the appropriate buffer width for a Mitigation:
Action taken during the planning, design, construction and operation of works and undertakings to alleviate potential adverse effects on the productive capacity of fish habitat.
given area or feature. See "A Word on Buffers" pages 13 and 14 for a summary of commonly accepted buffer widths for various natural features/areas.
A description of the proposed mitigation measures that will be used to eliminate or reduce negative impacts. Mitigation techniques should be designed to improve or maintain the health, form and function of the natural area/feature.
A description of proposed compensation for impacts that cannot be avoided or mitigated and proposed restoration efforts for disturbed areas. Refer to Conservation Halton's Guidelines for Stormwater Management and Creek Realignment Planting Plans and Tree Preservation Plans (2005) for guidance regarding appropriate species, densities and planting details for compensation and rehabilitation efforts.
A Word on Buffers:
Under Section 2.1.4 of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) development and site alteration shall not be permitted in areas of natural heritage "unless it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions". Under the PPS development or site alterations can be restricted within and adjacent to these areas if the project poses a threat to natural heritage features/areas. The best available science should be used in assessing the impacts of development. The following is a summary of scientifically based recommendations from lead government agencies for buffer widths around key natural areas and features. These summaries are general. The original documents should be consulted for a full understanding on the restrictions and allowances within the designated buffer zones as well as definitions for the identified features/areas. Further recommendations can be found in the Buffer Width Summaries document (Conservation Halton, 2004) and City of Hamilton Discussion Paper #7: Buffers (2005) which include summaries of recommended widths based on studies conducted by the scientific community.Municipal by-laws with respect to buffers and tree cutting should also be considered when determining buffer widths.
Aquatic Features Watercourses:
Conservation Halton Policies Procedures and Guidelines for the Administration of Ontario Regulation 150/90 - 2005 (DRAFT) Watercourse Type Minimum setback Rationale
Coldwater/Coolwater 30m Coldwater/coolwater fish species spawning and migration
Warmwater 15m Warmwater fish species spawning
Minor watercourse with no fish habitat
7.5m Allowance for long-term migration of the watercourse.
Ministry of Natural Resources – Fish Habitat Protection Guidelines for Developing Areas (1994)
Habitat Type Example Recommended
Buffer width (m)
Type 1 – Critical habitats spawning and nursery areas, groundwater discharge areas, etc 30
Type 2 – Important habitats feeding areas and open water habitats 15
Type 3 – Marginal habitats low productive capacity, highly degraded, and do not currently contribute directly to fish productivity.
15
Ministry of Natural Resources – Provincial Policy Statement – Natural Heritage Reference Manual (1999)
"Adjacent lands are those lands within which impacts must be considered and within which the compatibility of a development proposal must be addressed. …The Province recommends that adjacent lands are those lands within 30 metres of fish habitat"
Environment Canada – How Much Habitat is Enough? (2004)
"Stream should have a minimum 30 metre wide naturally vegetated adjacent lands areas on both sides, greater depending on site-specific conditions."
Fisheries and Oceans Canada – Land Development Guidelines for the Protection of Fish Habitat (1993)
"Leave strips should be permanently protected under one of the following methods: dedication as park, by return of the land to the Crown in the name of the local government, re-zoned as a protected area or reserve status, or secured with restrictive covenants."
The following chart outlines the recommended minimum "leave strip" widths for various development scenarios.
Adjacent land development Recommended minimum "leave strip" width*
Residential/ Low Density 15m
Commercial/High Density 30m
* Measurements are from the high water mark unless otherwise stated.
Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan
Recommendation ULM-2 regarding riparian buffers proposes the following target:
"ULM – 2.7 (2015) All rural watercourses within the Hamilton Harbour watershed be buffered by a 15 metre vegetative riparian buffer adjacent to warmwater fish habitat and a 30 metre vegetative buffer adjacent to coldwater fish habitat."
Green Belt Act (2005)
"In the case of wetlands, seepage areas and springs, fish habitat, permanent and intermittent streams, lakes, and significant woodlands, the minimum vegetation protection zone shall be a minimum of 30 metres wide measured from the outside boundary of the key natural heritage feature or key hydrological feature."
Terrestrial Features Valleylands:
Conservation Halton Integrated Land Use Planning Policy (2000, currently under revision)
"For major valleys, require, at a minimum, a 15.2 metre setback for lot lines, buildings, structures, and septic systems from the staked geographic top-of-bank, or stable top-of-bank whichever is greater…. For minor valleys, require a minimum 7.6 metre setback from lot lines, buildings, structures, and septic systems from the staked geographic top-of-bank, or stable top-of-bank whichever is greater."
Ministry of Natural Resources – Provincial Policy Statement – Natural Heritage Reference Manual (1999)
"Adjacent lands are those lands within which impacts must be considered and within which the compatibility of a development proposal must be addressed…. The Province recommends that adjacent lands are those lands within 50 metres of significant Valleylands."
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (2002)
Minimum Vegetation Protection Zone includes "all lands within 30 meters of stable top of bank"
Woodlands:
Ministry of Natural Resources – Provincial Policy Statement – Natural Heritage Reference Manual (1999)
"Adjacent lands are those lands within which impacts must be considered and within which the compatibility of a development proposal must be addressed…. The Province recommends that adjacent lands are those lands within 50 metres of a significant woodland."
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (2002)
Minimum Vegetation Protection Zone includes "all lands within 30 meters of the base of outermost tree trunks within the woodland"
Wetlands:
Conservation Halton Integrated Land Use Planning Policy (2000, currently under revision)
"Setback requirement will be determined though the preparation of an EIS. A minimum setback of 15 metres from the edge of a wetlands is required as a buffer"
Ministry of Natural Resources – Provincial Policy Statement – Natural Heritage Reference Manual (1999)
"Adjacent lands are those lands within which impacts must be considered and within which the compatibility of a development proposal must be addressed. ….The Province recommends that adjacent lands are those lands within 120 metre of individual significant wetlands or, in the case of complexes, within 120m of individual wetlands comprising the complex"
Environment Canada – How Much Habitat is Enough? (2004)
"Where this is not derived from site-specific characteristics, the following are minimum guidelines:
Wetland Type Recommended minimum width of Critical Function Zone and Protection Zone
Bog The total catchment area
Fen 100 metres or as determined by hydrogeological study, whichever is greater Marsh 100 metres
Swamp 100 metres
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (2002)
Minimum Vegetation Protection Zone includes "all lands within 30 meters of any part of feature"
Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI):
Ministry of Natural Resources – Provincial Policy Statement – Natural Heritage Reference Manual (1999)
"Adjacent lands are those lands within which impacts must be considered and within which the compatibility of a development proposal must be addressed. ….The Province recommends that adjacent lands are those lands within 50 metres of an ANSI."
Wildlife Habitat:
Ministry of Natural Resources - Provincial Policy Statement – Natural Heritage Reference Manual (1999)
"Adjacent lands are those lands within which impacts must be considered and within which the compatibility of a development proposal must be addressed…. The Province recommends an adjacent lands width of 50 metres as a guidelines for considering whether development may have an impact on significant wildlife habitat and that some assessment of potential impacts may be required."
Vulnerable, Threatened, and Endangered Species:
Ministry of Natural Resources - Provincial Policy Statement – Natural Heritage Reference Manual (1999)
"Adjacent lands are those lands within which impacts must be considered and within which the compatibility of a development proposal must be addressed…. The Province recommends that adjacent lands are those lands within 50 metres of the significant portions of the habitat of endangered or threatened species"
v. MONITORING PLAN
Monitoring plans should be designed to measure the impacts of the development on natural areas over time. It is essential to have substantial baseline data prior to the implementation of any development proposal. For large-scale projects and projects near significant areas a multi-season/year inventory may be required. For smaller projects the study may be scoped. Pre-consultation with Conservation Halton staff for the scope of work needed is strongly recommended. The baseline data will be used as a benchmark from which to measure the extent of impact of the development. Opportunities to make changes to the site conditions should be explored if the predicted levels of impact are exceeded or if negative effects occur that were not previously identified.
The Natural Heritage Reference Manual (OMNR, 1999) states that monitoring may be required where:
There is uncertainty as to the effectiveness of established mitigation measures to avoid negative impact
New and untested mitigation measures are used
There are some long-term operations associated with a development that could facilitate some future or on-going refinement to the mitigation strategy.
vi. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
Recommendation should be given based on the evaluation within the EIS. Methods and preferred measures that will avoid and/or mitigate negative impacts should be outlined within the EIS. The proposal should be as specific as possible. The recommendations should outline how the proposal will maintain or enhance the ecological functions of the natural area. The following questions should be discussed and answered:
Should the proposal proceed as planned?
Should the proposal be revised to eliminate or reduce impacts? What mitigation measures are required?
What are the conditions of development, including a monitoring plan?
Recommendations should also include long-term management plans,
conservation, enhancement, and monitoring of significant
environmental features and functions on the subject property or surrounding areas. Degraded areas should be first looked upon as opportunities for enhancement and/or restoration.
G. DATA REQUESTS
Data is given only to proponents that have an existing application with Conservation Halton related to the request. The following chart outlines the resources that should be consulted when fulfilling data requests.
* Indicates resources available from Conservation Halton. Other data should be collected from its original source.
The distance away from the feature/area to be included in the data requested may be increased or decreased depending on the availability and quality of data and details of the proposal.
Natural Area/Feature
Recommended distance way from area/feature to
be included
Minimum area of Influence (MMAH, 2002)
Resources to be checked
Fish and fish habitat 1 concession 120m Conservation Halton fisheries database and GIS, spawning records*
MNR data and archives Woodlands Connecting features/area up
to 1 km away, Connecting corridors up to 1 km away.
120m Conservation Halton GIS* NAI database and GIS* NHIC database
Regional ESA mapping and reports
Wetlands Connecting features/areas up to 1 km away, Connecting corridors up to 1 km away.
120m MNR wetland evaluations* NAI database and GIS* Conservation Halton GIS* Life science 120m
ANSIs Connecting features/area up to 1 km away, Connecting corridors up to 1 km away.
Earth science 50m
NHIC database
Conservation Halton GIS* ANSI report
NAI database and GIS*
Threatened, vulnerable and endangered species 1.0 km from limits of proposed development 120m NHIC database NAI database and GIS* Valleylands Up to 50m away 120m from stable
top of bank
Conservation Halton limit of regulated area*
Wildlife habitat Known home range plus 50m
120m NAI database and GIS* Migratory birds Known migration routes up
to 10 km away.
Birds Studies Canada NAI database and GIS* Breeding Birds Connecting features/areas up
to 1km away. Connecting corridors up to 1km away
Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas NAI database and GIS*
Significant time and effort may be required to compile date to fulfill a request. The following fee schedule has been developed to satisfy this matter.
FEE SCHEDULE
The types of charges will vary based on the type of data, specific data use and the client category. All Hec2, Hec-RAS, GeoHec-RAS and other computer/data models have mandatory fees that are not normally waived. Fees for these models are specified under 'Digital Fee Schedule'.
Handling Fee: $50.00 per request Staff Time: $50.00 per half hour or part Printing Fees: See below Unless specified otherwise, copies are on 20lb bond white paper.
Reproduction of reports or hard copy mapping
Letter or Legal, black and white photocopies $0.20 per page Tabloid (11x17”), black and white photocopies $0.30 per page Xerox 2510 or Diazo reprints (i.e., flood and fill lines) $10.00 per sheet Letter or Legal, colour photocopies $2.00 per page Tabloid (11x17”), colour photocopies $5.00 per page
Custom GIS Map Production (printing fees only)
Letter (8.5x11”) – Xerox Laser Output $5.00 per page Tabloid (11x17”) - Xerox Laser Output $10.00 per page C size (17x22”) –HP Design Jet Plotter output $12.00 per plot D size (22x34”) –HP Design Jet Plotter output $14.00 per plot E size (34x44”) –HP Design Jet Plotter output $16.00 per plot
Digital Fee Schedule
Hec2/Hec-RAS/GeoHec-RAS Models $100.00 per tributary or area
2002 Orthophotos $50.00 per tile (1x1 km)
2002 Digital Elevation Model $50.00 per tile (1x1 km)
Other data Variable
Fees will be charged to recover the cost of the original data purchase.
Material Fee Schedule
CD/DVD/Floppy Diskette/FTP/e-mail $0.00 (included in handling fee) HP Coated laser printer paper*
8.5 x 11” $1.00 per page
11x17” $2.00 per page
Coated HP Plotter paper* $5.00 per linear foot plotted
*Limited quantities of special paper are on hand. Large print orders may require additional lead-time to order sufficient stock.
The invoice for the data request fees will be delivered with the data. Payment is required within 30 days. After 30 days, interest will be applied to the invoice. Invoices can be paid via cash or cheques. Cheques can be made out to Conservation Halton with the note "ecology data request". For requests that require mapping, the following note will be included on all maps included with the data request.
"This mapping is produced by Conservation Halton and should be used for information purposes only. The data displayed are derived from sources with different accuracies and all boundaries should therefore be considered approximate. Data on this map is used under license with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Regional Municipality of Halton, Grand River Conservation Authority, Teranet Enterprises Inc and other agencies. Copyright 2005."
Data collected through these studies should be submitted to Conservation Halton 30 days after the finalization of the study. Approximate completion times should be indicated in the database so that reminders can be sent out to the proponent.
It is expected that the data supplied for a given project will be destroyed upon completion of the project. Supplied data cannot be used for anything other than the project identified in the agreement.
H. REFERENCES
City of Hamilton. 2005. Discussion Paper #7: Buffers.
City of Hamilton. 2004. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) DRAFT.
City of Mississauga. 2002. Environmental Impact Studies Terms of Reference.
Conservation Halton. 2000. Integrated Land Use Planning Policy.
Conservation Halton. 2005. Draft Policies Procedures and Guidelines for the Administration of Ontario Regulation 150/90.
Corporation of the City of Mississauga. (1997). Memorandum of Understanding.
Environment Canada. 2004. How Much Habitat is Enough?
Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 1993. Land Development Guidelines for the Protection of Fish Habitat.
Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan: Stage 2 Update 2002.
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. 2002. Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan.
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. 2005. Green Belt Act..
Ministry of Natural Resources. 1999. Provincial Policy Statement Natural Heritage Reference Manual.
Ministry of Natural Resources. 2000 Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide.
Ministry of Natural Resources. 2002. Significant Wildlife Habitat Decision Support System.
Ministry of Natural Resources. 2004. Oak Ridges Moraine Technical Paper (MNR T.P. 8) Preparation of Natural Heritage Evaluations for All Key Features on the Oak Ridges Moraine.
Regional Municipality of Halton. 2005. Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines (Draft).
Regional Municipality of Halton. 1998. Memorandum of Understanding Regarding the Implementation of an Integrated Halton Area Planning System.
Regional Municipality of Hamilton –Wentworth. (1996) Memorandum of Understanding.
Appendix A
Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (2002)
Technical Paper #8 – Preparation of Natural Heritage Evaluations for all Key Natural Heritage Features on the Oak Ridges Moraine (Appendix 2, Table A Suggested Scoping
Appendix B
Electronic Data Format
HamNAI ELC and Species databases HNAI ELC and Species databases
CH fish database OBBN database?
Halton Natural Areas Inventory Species Database Example
Field Date D/M/Y Year Location Type Species Code
Species Code
UTME UTMN Evidence Notes Number Surveyors NAD Accuracy Source
Example 08/19/04 2004 Limestone Creek 40m upstream of Twiss Road between Steeles and Derry, Milton
F 80 F-080 601235 4801536 OB Electrofishing survey 5 B. Jamieson, A. Dunn, S Watson-Leung 83 5 MNR Field Collection Record
Halton Natural Areas Inventory ELC Database Description
Field Description Length Data Type Example
Site
Unique Site Identifier using the format YYppSS (YY=year of survey, pp=sampling organization, SS=Sample
site number 20 Text 05/ch/22
SiteName Site name 50 Text Fourteen Mile Creek Valley
SurveyDate Date the survey was conducted Medium Date Date/Time 06/24/2005 SurveyStartTime
Approximate time the survey
commenced (using 24hour clock) Short Time Date/Time 9:56 SurveyEndTime
Approximate time the survey was
complete (using 24hour clock) Short Time Date/Time 15:32 Surveyor
Names of surveyors (First initial and last
name) 80 Text
K.Barrett, S. Watson-Leung, B. Van Ryswyk
Municipality
Municipality in which the survey was conducted (Milton, Mississauga, Oakville, Burlington, Halton Hills,
Puslinch, Hamilton) 50 Text Milton
WatershedLocation Long Integer Number
DrainageBasin 50 Text
Ecosite Designation
As determine using ELC field book (Lee
et al, 1998) 70 Text Deciduous Forest
Ecosite Code
As determine using ELC field book (Lee
et al, 1998) 6 Text FOD
Vegetation Type Designation
As determine using ELC field book (Lee
et al, 1998) 70 Text
Sugar Maple Beech Deciduous Forest Vegetation Type Code
As determine using ELC field book (Lee
et al, 1998) 7 Text FOD5-1
Mapping Unit 50 Text
Mapping Code 50 Text
Polygon 50 Text
Polygon Variability 10 Text
Ecosite Code Notes 24 Text
UTMZ
UTM mapping zone (Default 17 for
Halton Jurisdiction) Long integer Number 17
UTME UTM easting coordinate Single Number 598168
UTMN UTM norting coordinate Single Number 4817643
System AQUATIC, TERRESTRIAL, WETLAND, Text TERRESTRIAL
Landform 50 Text
Base
OPEN WATER, SHALLOW WATER,
SURFICIAL DEPOSIT, BEDROCK, new 50 Text BEDROCK
Substrate
ORGANIC, MINERAL SOIL, PARENT MINERAL, ACIDIC BEDROCK, BASIC
BEDROCK, CARBONATE BEDROCK 50 Text PARENT MINERAL
Feature
LACUSTRINE, RIVERINE, BOTTOMLAND, TERRACE, VALLEYLAND, TABLELAND, ROLL. UPLAND, CLIFF, TALUS,
CREVICE/CAVE, ALVAR, ROCKLAND,
BEACH/BAR, SAND DUNE, BLUFF 50 Text BOTTOMLAND
History NATURAL, CULTURAL 50 Text NATURAL
Physiognomy TREED, SHRUB, OPEN, NONE, NEW 50 Text TREED
Community Class
BARREN, BARREN-MEADOW, FOREST, RIVER/STREAM, LAKE/POND, BARREN-THICKET, BOG, FEN, MARSH, MEADOW, NEW, NONE, PLANTATION, POND, PRAIRIE, SAVHANA, SAVHANA-WOODLAND, SHALLOW MARSH,
SWAMP, THICKET, WOODLAND 50 Text FOREST
Canopy Cover Long Integer Number 2
Sub-Canopy Cover Long Integer Number 3
Understorey Cover Long Integer Number 1
Gound Level Cover Long Integer Number 1
Canopy Height Long Integer Number 1
Sub-Canopy Height Long Integer Number 3
Understorey Height Long Integer Number 3
Ground Height Long Integer Number 6
Basal Area Double Number 25
Prism Factor 2 Long Integer Number 2
Size Class 0-10 50 Text A
1 - >25m, 2 - >10m and <=25m, 3 - >2m and <10m, 4 - >1m and <2m, 5 - >0.5m and <1m, 6 - >0.2m and <0.5m, 7 - <0.2m 0 - none, 1 - 0 to <10%, 2 - >10% to <25%, 3 - >25% to <60%, 4 - >60%
Size Class 0-10 50 Text A
Size Class >10-25 50 Text N
Size Class >25-50 50 Text R
Size Class >50 50 Text O
Standing Snags <10 50 Text D
Standing Snags 10-24 50 Text O
Standing Snags 25-50 50 Text R
Standing Snags >50 50 Text R
Debris<10 1 Text D
Logs 10-30 1 Text O
Logs 25-50 1 Text N
Logs>50 1 Text N
Community Age
PIONEER, YOUNG, MIDDLE AGE,
MATURE, OLD GROWTH 50 Text middle age
Soil Texture 6 Text SiL
Depth to Mottles 4 Text 70
Depth to Gley 50 Text >120
Depth of Organics 4 Text None
Depth to Bedrock 50 Text >120
Moisture Regime 16 Text 3
Soil Analysis Homogeneous, Variable 50 Text homeogeneous
Notes 200 Text
A-Abundent, R-Rare, O-Ocassional, N-None, D-Dominent
Halton Natural Areas Inventory ELC Database Example
Site SiteName SurveyDate SurveyStartTime SurveyEndTime Surveyor Municipality
05/ch/22 Fourteen Mile Creek Valley 06/24/2005 9:56 15:32
K.Barrett, S. Watson-Leung, B. Van
Ryswyk Milton
DrainageBasin Ecosite Designation Ecosite Code Vegetation Type Designation Vegetation Type Code Mapping Unit Mapping Code
Bronte Creek
Dry-fresh Sugar Maple
Deciduous Forest FOD5
Dry-Fresh Sugar Maple Beech
Deciduous Forest Type FOD5-1
Ecosite Code Notes UTMZ UTME UTMN System Landform Base
17 598168 4817643 TERRESTRIAL BEDROCK
History Physiognomy Community Class Tree Cover Sapling/Shrub Cover Low Woody Cover Ground Cover
NATURAL Treed Forest 4 2 3 4
Sub-Canopy Cover Understorey Cover Gound Level Cover Canopy Height Sub-Canopy Height Understorey Height Ground Height
2 3 4 2 3 6 7
Size Class 0-10 Size Class >10-25 Size Class >25-50 Size Class >50 Standing Snags <10 Standing Snags 10-24 Standing Snags 25-50
O A R R O R R
Logs 10-30 Logs 25-50 Logs>50 Community Age Soil Texture Depth to Mottles Depth to Gley
N N N Mid-Age vfscl none none
Mottles/Gley Depth of Organics Depth to Bedrock Moisture Class Soil Analysis Notes
Fish Habitat Database Description – Habitat
Field Description Field Length Data Type Example
Station Station identification code 50 Text SXM-26
Date Date on which the survey was completed Medium Date Date/Time 23/06/05
Water Colour
Colour of the water in the area sampled (Colourless,
Yellow/Brown, Blue/Green, Turbid, Other) 50 Text Colourless
Cloud Cover (%) Percent of cloud cover 50 Text 10
Water temperature (Celsius) Water temperature in the area sampled (degree Celsius) 50 Text 18
Air Temperature (Celsius) Air Temperature (Degrees Celsius) 50 Text 23
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Dissolved oxygen in the area sampled 50 Text
pH pH of the water in the area sampled 50 Text
Conductivity Conductivity of the water in area sampled 50 Text
Secchi (cm) Secchi Depth (Centimeters) 50 Text
Comments Additional comments or notes of the habitat conditions 150 Text Instream fish habitat structure built in 2002
Phys_Hab
Amount of physical in-stream habitat (None, Sparse,
Moderate, Dense, Other) 50 Text Moderate
Phys_Hab_dom
Dominant type of physical instream habitat (Logs, Brush/Woody Debris, Boulder/Rocks, Undercut bank, Root
Wads, Refugia/Pools, Man made structures) 50 Text Man made structures
Phys_Hab_sub_dom
Sub-dominant type of physical instream habitat (Logs, Brush/Woody Debris, Boulder/Rocks, Undercut bank, Root
Wads, Refugia/Pools, Man made structures) 50 Text Boulders/Rocks
Phys_Hab_other
Other type of physical instream habitat (Logs, Brush/Woody Debris, Boulder/Rocks, Undercut bank, Root Wads,
Refugia/Pools, Man made structures) 50 Text Refugia/Pools
Cover_shore
Amount of cover provided by objects of shore (None,
Sparse, Moderate, Dense, Other) 50 Text Sparse
Cover_shore_dom
Dominant type of cover provided by objects on shore (Deciduous Trees, Coniferous Trees, Shrubs, Herbaceous, Moss, Narrow-leaved Emergents, Broad-leaved Emergents,
Robust Emergents) 50 Text Herbaceous
Cover_shore_sub_dom
Sub-dominant type of cover provided by objects on shore (Deciduous Trees, Coniferous Trees, Shrubs, Herbaceous, Moss, Narrow-leaved Emergents, Broad-leaved Emergents,
Robust Emergents) 50 Text Narrow-leaved Emergents
Cover_shore_other
Other types of cover provided by objects on shore (Deciduous Trees, Coniferous Trees, Shrubs, Herbaceous, Moss, Narrow-leaved Emergents, Broad-leaved Emergents,
Robust Emergents) 50 Text Moss
Cover_water
Amount of instream vegetative cover (None, Sparse,
Moderate, Dense, Other) 50 Text Sparse
Cover_water_dom
Dominant type of instream vegetative cover (Deciduous Trees, Coniferous Trees, Shrubs, Herbaceous, Moss, Narrow-leaved Emergents, Broad-leaved Emergents,
Robust Emergents) 50 Text Narrow-leaved Emergents
Cover_water_sub_dom
Sub-dominant type of instream vegetative cover (Deciduous Trees, Coniferous Trees, Shrubs, Herbaceous, Moss, Narrow-leaved Emergents, Broad-leaved Emergents,
Robust Emergents) 50 Text Broad-leaved Emergents
Cover_water_other
Other type of instream vegetative cover (Deciduous Trees, Coniferous Trees, Shrubs, Herbaceous, Moss, Narrow-leaved Emergents, Broad-Narrow-leaved Emergents, Robust
Emergents) 50 Text Robust Emergents
Bot_type_dom
Dominant type of bottom substrate (Rock, Bedrock, Boulder, Rubble, Cobble, Gravel, Sand, Silt, Clay, Muck, Marl,
Detritus, Other) 50 Text Clay
Bot_type_sub_dom
Sub-dominant of bottom substrate (Rock, Bedrock, Boulder, Rubble, Cobble, Gravel, Sand, Silt, Clay, Muck, Marl,
Detritus, Other) 50 Text Muck
Bot_type_other
Other type of bottom substrate (Rock, Bedrock, Boulder, Rubble, Cobble, Gravel, Sand, Silt, Clay, Muck, Marl,
Detritus, Other) 50 Text Detritus
Photo File name and/or location of photo of the site habtiat 150 Text
D://Sixteen Mile Creek/2005 fish surveys/Derry Rd and 25/ US of Derry Bridge.jpg
Fish Habitat Database Example – Habitat
Field Station Date Water Colour Cloud Cover (%) Water temperature (Celsius) Air Temperature (Celsius) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) pH Conductivity Secchi (cm) Comments
Example SXM-26 23/06/05 Colourless 10 18 23 Instream fish habitat structure built in 2002
Fish Habitat Database Description – Fish Collection
Field Description Length Data Type Example
Station Station Identification code 50 Text SXM-26
Date
Date on which the survey was
completed Medium dateDate/Time 23/06/05
Sp_Code MNR species code 50 Text
Com_Name Fish species common name 50 Text Rainbow Trout
Sci_Name
Fish species scientific(Latin)
name 50 Text Oncorhynchus mykiss
#_Fish
Number of fish captured. May be a single fish entry or an entry of a
bulk number of fish) 50 Text 8
Tot_Lg
The total length of a single fish OR the size range of a number
of fish (mm) 50 Text 230
Fork Lg
The fork length of a single fish
(mm) 50 Text 28
Weight
The weight of a single fish OR the weight of a bulk number of
fish (g) 50 Text 356
Scales_Collected Were scales collected (Yes, No) 50 Text No
Age Age of a single fish 50 Text
Fate
The fate of the fish collected (Released, MNR, ROM,
Deceased, Kept, Other) 50 Text Released
Comments
Additional comments or notes
Fish Habitat Database Example – Fish Collection
Field Station Date Sp_Code Com_Name Sci_Name #_Fish Tot_Lg Fork Lg Weight Scales_Collected Age Fate Comments
Example SXM-26 23/06/05 Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss 8 230 28 356 No Released
Fish Habitat Database Example – Sampling Information
Field Description Length Data Type Example
Station Station identification code 50 Text SXM-26
Date
Date on which the survey was
completed Medium date Date/Time 23/06/05
Stn-lg Station length (metres) 50 Text 40
Survey_type
Type of survey completed
(Presence/Absence, Biomass, Fish
Rescue, Observation) 50 Text Biomass
Gear
Gear used to complete the survey (Backpack Electrofisher, Boat Electrofisher, Seine Net, Trap Net, Dip Net, D Net, Minnow Trap, Multiple
Gear Types) 50 Text Multiple Gear Types
Effort
Amount of effort used to complete the
survey (e-seconds) 50 Text 1348
Collectors
Names of those individuals completing the survey and/or
collecting information 50 Text A. Dunn, R. Natagaal, S. Holton
Source
Organization/individual who provided
the information 50 Text Conservation Halton
Data format
Additional comments or notes with
respect to the survey 50 Text
Comments
Additional comments or notes with
respect to the survey 50 Text
Report
Report where information was
obtained or documented 200 Text MNR Field Collection Record
Author Authtor of the report 150 Text A. Dunn, R. Natagaal, S. Holton
Fish Habitat Database Example – Sampling Information
Field Station Date Stn-lg Survey_type Gear Effort Collectors Source Data format Comments Report
Fish Habitat Database Description – Station Information
Field Description Length Data Type Example
Station Station identification code 50 Text SXM-23
Wtrshed
Watershed in which the sampling took place (Appleby Creek, Shoreacres Creek, Sheldon Creek, Sixteen Mile Creek, Bronte Creek, Joshua's Creek, Fourteen Mile Creek, Hager Creek, Rambo Creek, Morrison Creek, Wedgewood Creek, Indian Creek, Falcon Creek, Rosewood Creek, Grindstone, LaSalle Creek, McCraney Creek, Tuck Creek, Stillwater Creek, Edgewater Creek, Teal Creek, Forest Glen Creek, West Aldreshot
Creek,) 50 Text Sixteen Mile Creek
Wtrshed-code
MNR watershed code for the watershed where the sampling took place
(Grindstone Creek = 2HB-05, Bronte Creek = 2HB-04, Sixteen Mile Creek =
2HB-03, Hamilton Harbour = N/A) 50 Text 2HB-03
Sub-wtrshed
sub-watershed in which the sampling took place (Bronte Creek, Strabane Creek, Bronte-Indian Creek, Mount Nemo Creek, Lowville Creek, Willoughby Creek, Mountsberg Creek, Kilbride Creek, Flamborough Creek, Limestone Creek, West Bench-16, Upper West Branch-16, Middle Branch-16, Middle East Branch-16, East Branch-16, East Branch Lisgar-16, Lower Middle
Branch-16, Main Branch-Branch-16, urban Diverted-16) 50 Text Upper West Branch -16
Drainage System
Dainage system of the creek in which the sampling took place. (Lake Ontario or
Hamilton Harbour/Lake Ontario) 50 Text Lake Ontario
Stn_LocalityPhysical station location description 150 Text
16MC at Derry Road west of HWY 25, top of station 40m u/s of Derry Road bridge
Rd_cross Road crossing near station 100 Text Derry Road and HWY 25
County_red
County or Region in which station is
found 50 Text Halton
City_town City or Town in which the station is found 50 Text Milton Township Township in which the station is found 50 Text Trafalgar
Lot Lot in which the station is found 50 Text 6
Conc Concession in which the station is found 50 Text 3
Easting
Easting coordinates. UTMs in NAD 83
format 50 Text 598123
Northing
Northing coordinated. UTMs in NAD 83
format 50 Text 4819326
Comments
Additional comments and notes specific
to the location of the station 100 Text
Top of station marked on right bank with metal stake and flagging tape
Photos
file name and/or location of photo of the
station 150 Text
D://Sixteen Mile Creek/2005 fish surveys/Derry Rd and 25/ US of Derry Bridge.jpg
Fish Habitat Database Example – Station Information
Field Station Wtrshed Wtrshed-codeSub-wtrshedDrainage SystemStn_Locality Rd_cross County_redCity_town Township Lot Conc Easting Northing Comments
Example SXM-23 Sixteen Mile Creek 2HB-03 Upper West Branch -16 Lake Ontario 16MC at Derry Road west of HWY 25, top of station 40m u/s of Derry Road bridge
Derry Road and
HWY 25 Halton Milton Trafalgar 6 3 598123 4819326
Top of station marked on right bank with metal stake and flagging tape
Appendix C
Natural Heritage Reference Manual (1999)
